The Source of Consciousness

[Terrapin Station]

Oh, and obviously I comment often on ethics topics, but because that's an ontological issue on my view, where I find it frustrating that so many folks want to be taken in by an ontological fantasy (the notion of objective ethics).

[Nick_A]

Oh, and obviously I comment often on ethics topics, but because that's an ontological issue on my view, where I find it frustrating that so many folks want to be taken in by an ontological fantasy (the notion of objective ethics).

This is your belief so why do you bother condemning objective ethics and the human potential to experience objective conscience in relation to universal laws Man didn't create? You can say that Christians, Buddhists, Hindus etc are all nuts and those like you expressing their belief in Man creating consciousness is proof of intellectual superiority. It doesn't dawn on you that maybe you are missing something. Consider the dharma"

One thing to remember is that throughout ancient times, since the era of the Vedas some several thousand years BCE, dharma has been thought of as an unchanging universal law, similar to the laws of gravity, mathematics, and fluid dynamics. As gravity is thought of as a universal law no matter what it is called in different languages, dharma is also considered a universal law no matter what it is called in different religions.

Is the the purpose of Man to serve universal purpose rather than the universe serving Man and the consciousness Man created. The question is absurd for you but essential for anyone with the question "Why we are here"

[-0+]

You are confusing the eternal unchanging unique conscious quality of the ONE with contents of consciousness which are interpreted by organic life according to their own being within the ONE.

Anyone who experiences eternal unchanging consciousness may relate to this, but who experiences this? Anecdotal evidence suggests consciousness is something that can be shifted in and out of. Unconsciousness may not be experienced directly, but may be experienced indirectly though a sense of regaining consciousness after some loss of consciousness ("I am conscious now, I am conscious now ... Oh, it seems I lost consciousness for awhile but I am conscious again now").

Consciousness and unconsciousness may depend on each other for their significance.

Any explanation of consciousness that doesn't fit well with what is experienced may be questionable.

It is the hypothesis which enables person to verify the purpose of our universe and the meaning and purpose of organic life including Man within it.

If Man is the creator of consciousness, then there is no universal purpose to verify.

This seems to suggest that the universe (and organic life within this) has a purpose, and there is some drive to verify a particular purpose in mind rather than explore a more general and open question like, "what is the purpose of the universe?" ... Or forget about purpose and how the universe is supposed to behave and just focus on observing how it actually behaves?

The universe may or may not have a purpose either way. Each experiencer of consciousness may have their own purpose in mind which may or may not correlate well with reality or other purposes.

The significance of purpose may lie in its potential to deviate from reality. If purpose totally agrees with reality then purpose becomes redundant? Any difference between purpose and reality may qualify as fantasy and this difference may become a source of internal conflict?

[Terrapin Station]

This is your belief so why do you bother condemning objective ethics and the human potential to experience objective conscience in relation to universal laws Man didn't create?

Because there is no such thing as objective ethics, objective conscience (which is quite the oxymoron), or universal laws. Asking why I'd bother condemning this is like asking someone why they'd bother condemning someone claiming that the government is actually run by "behind-the-scenes reptilians." We often counter people claiming things that are false, especially if what they're claiming is pretty wacky (like the idea of reptilians running the government).

The way to "counter the counter" is to present any evidence of objective ethics, etc.

[Nick_A]

This is your belief so why do you bother condemning objective ethics and the human potential to experience objective conscience in relation to universal laws Man didn't create?

Because there is no such thing as objective ethics, objective conscience (which is quite the oxymoron), or universal laws. Asking why I'd bother condemning this is like asking someone why they'd bother condemning someone claiming that the government is actually run by "behind-the-scenes reptilians." We often counter people claiming things that are false, especially if what they're claiming is pretty wacky (like the idea of reptilians running the government).

The way to "counter the counter" is to present any evidence of objective ethics, etc.

1954
“We will be destroyed unless we create a cosmic conscience. And we have to begin to do that on an individual level, with the youth that are the politicians of tomorrow…. But no one, and certainly no state, can take over the responsibility that the individual has to his conscience.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 141. Conversation in Summer of 1954)

“We must create a cosmic man, a man ruled by his conscience.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 133.)

“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” ~ Einstein

You believe objective conscience is fantasy while I believe with a minority of others that without reawakening the human capacity for objective conscience, humanity will not survive. As important as it is, Humanity concentrates on the most trivial superficial concerns as opposed to reawakening the human experience of objective conscience the source of which is the ONE in which consciousness begins its devolution into the contents of consciousness which manifest our universe.

Without being able to look up in wonder rather than down into self justification, I don't see how our species survives. Naturally I look for those aware of the problem of the human condition and how they strive to seek freedom from Plato's Cave. You prefer to argue about the pros and cons of cave life. We have different interests and really shouldn't be mixed.

[-0+]

Because there is no such thing as objective ethics, objective conscience (which is quite the oxymoron), or universal laws.

What about laws of physics? Are these not universal laws?

Physical laws can define what is objective (relative to the physical universe).

The way to "counter the counter" is to present any evidence of objective ethics, etc.

The primary question of objectivity may be: how to physically measure this?

Things may be viewed as objective to the extent which they can be physically measured.

Some things like distance, mass, energy, force, luminosity, etc, can by physically measured to some extent.

How to physically measure things like good/bad, beauty, value, etc? If these things are not (based on) physical properties of the universe then it may not be possible to physically measure them and they may not be able to qualify as objective.

If the physical universe is anything like a computer game universe then it is conceivable that value could be a physical property of things for the purpose of scoring, and these values are not accessible or it is not known how to access these values yet. These values could be viewed as objective relative to the universe, even if they are arbitrary, but this objectivity may just be speculative unless it can be shown how to physically observe these values.

At least 3 levels of value objectivity can be entertained:
(1) It is conceivable that the universe has objective values, but there is no physical evidence to indicate that it has.
(2) It is somehow known that the universe has objective values, but it is not known how to observe these values.
(3) The universe has objective values and it can be shown how to observe them.

What level of objectivity is required to say something is objective?

[Count Lucanor]

That is no different than asking if man creates metabolism or is man a receiver of metabolism. It doesn't make much sense. Consciousness does not seem to be a substance, something that would be created or transmitted. It's a name for a set of neurological processes. There's no need for a source.

I don't think you have a clue as to what you are talking about. You might want to consider doing some research which may help things make more "sense" for you, before posting such disinformation.

Gee

You can have opinions for sure, even though they lack any support on logical arguments or evidence.

That is a rather sweeping assessment regarding support of my opinions that you can not possibly know -- you are making assumptions.

Actually it was my sweeping assessment regarding your sweeping assessment regarding support of my opinions that you cannot possibly know. Now we are even.

You want logic? OK. Your above statement, "Consciousness does not seem to be a substance . . ." makes it clear that you do not know with any certainty what consciousness actually is. Science has the same problem, which is why there is a biology, a neurology, even a psychology, but there is no consciousnessology.

It would have been nice if you had included some of that logic that you promised, but there's none of it. Consciousness don't seem to be a substance because there's no good reason for us to believe it's any kind of substance. That means that we know that one thing about consciousness, as well as many others, which never implies that we know everything about consciousness. The fact is, however, that anything that we do know about consciousness comes from science. If you know of any other field or discipline that give us an insightful knowledge about consciousness, don't hesitate in revealing such magnificent breakthrough, I'm so curious as to what that may be...

[Belindi]

Maybe the difference between artificially intelligent sort of consciousness on the one hand, and human consciousness on the other hand , is that human consciousness makes more mistakes than AI yet strives to turn the errors into happpy accidents.

[UniversalAlien]

The Source of Consciousness

Impossible speculation - Unless You can define exactly what is consciousness.

And if you can not define 'exactly' what is consciousness how can you possibly ask for the source ?

What I am questioning here is if anyone, including me, who contributed to this post is conscious ?

Tell us why we should accept that you are conscious?

And if you are conscious and can define and prove it - Then maybe you can speculate on the source.

[-0+]

I believe with a minority of others that without reawakening the human capacity for objective conscience, humanity will not survive. As important as it is, Humanity concentrates on the most trivial superficial concerns as opposed to reawakening the human experience of objective conscience the source of which is the ONE in which consciousness begins its devolution into the contents of consciousness which manifest our universe.

Consciousness and conscience can be two opposing sides: awareness of what really is; and ideas about what should be or should have been. If the two sides (reality and fantasy) don't agree, this can result in internal conflict.

Any suggestion that something is wrong implicitly suggests there is something wrong with the source of this thing. If the ONE is the source of something that is wrong, then there must also be something wrong with the ONE ... unless there is an additional source (like the OTHER or the ANTI-ONE) that is responsible for the wrongness of this thing, in which case the ONE become the HALF?

"Reawakening the human capacity for objective conscience" seems to suggest this capacity was awake at some time in the past and is currently not awake? Can anyone refer to a period in history when this capacity was awake and explain how this assisted human survival better back then the current situation does today?

If biological life has been surviving in various forms for billions of years without the awakening of this human capacity (mostly before humans even existed), why can't humans and other species continue to survive without awakening this capacity? Are there are any reasons to suggest that awakening this couldn't have the opposite effect and hasten the extinction of humans?

Without being able to look up in wonder rather than down into self justification, I don't see how our species survives.

Species evolve into other species. Humans will probably become extinct at some stage. It is just a question of when, and whether humans will have been stepping stones to other surviving species that are no longer classified as Homo sapiens (just as former species have been stepping stones towards Homo sapiens) or an evolutionary dead end.

Justification in any direction is questionable. Scientific method can be applied in any direction that one has access to. This could include conscious experience (even if this has to be a solo endeavour). Looking in any direction that one doesn't have access to may just involve speculation.

[Gee]

I don't think you have a clue as to what you are talking about. You might want to consider doing some research which may help things make more "sense" for you, before posting such disinformation.

Gee

You can have opinions for sure, even though they lack any support on logical arguments or evidence.

That is a rather sweeping assessment regarding support of my opinions that you can not possibly know -- you are making assumptions.

Actually it was my sweeping assessment regarding your sweeping assessment regarding support of my opinions that you cannot possibly know. Now we are even.

"Now we are even."? Are we back in grade school?

I have been studying consciousness off and on for the past 50 years, and you will find that I post mostly in threads that deal with consciousness because that is what I know. I have read posts that you have made that I considered intelligent responses -- but not in threads about consciousness. When it comes to consciousness, you give responses and opinions that are quite clueless, so my assessment is not just from this thread. Consciousness is a massive subject, so there are few people, who have a decent understanding of it. My health is bad, so I do a lot more reading threads than I do posting. I have found you to be one of the members, who is more interested in arguing about consciousness, rather than learning about consciousness.

You want logic? OK. Your above statement, "Consciousness does not seem to be a substance . . ." makes it clear that you do not know with any certainty what consciousness actually is. Science has the same problem, which is why there is a biology, a neurology, even a psychology, but there is no consciousnessology.

It would have been nice if you had included some of that logic that you promised, but there's none of it.

That was my point. It is clear to you that consciousness does not seem to be a substance, therefore it must be true that it is "a name for a set of neurological processes". That is like saying that the animal that I am looking at does not seem to be a donkey, therefore it must be a goat. No logic whatsoever, which was my point.

Consciousness don't seem to be a substance because there's no good reason for us to believe it's any kind of substance. That means that we know that one thing about consciousness, as well as many others, which never implies that we know everything about consciousness.

If you are going to talk about beliefs, then consider that there is good reason to believe that consciousness is physical -- unless you believe in magic.

The fact is, however, that anything that we do know about consciousness comes from science. If you know of any other field or discipline that give us an insightful knowledge about consciousness, don't hesitate in revealing such magnificent breakthrough, I'm so curious as to what that may be...

It should embarrass you to have made such a ridiculous response while posting in a philosophy forum. Of the three disciplines, science has given us the least of our information on consciousness.

Gee

[Nick_A]

-O+

Justification in any direction is questionable. Scientific method can be applied in any direction that one has access to. This could include conscious experience (even if this has to be a solo endeavour). Looking in any direction that one doesn't have access to may just involve speculation.

Simone Weil observed:

Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it.

Imagination and fiction make up more than three quarters of our real life.

If she is right, without reawakening and acquiring conscious freedom from imagination, can we really discern right from wrong?

[Gee]

UniversalAlien;
You have brought up some good points that I think deserve to be addressed. Pattern Chaser also expressed an interest in what consciousness actually is, so I will try to tell you about some of the things that I have learned. There is no way that I can give you a full understanding, as I don't fully understand it, but you should be able to research some of this once you know what to look for.

The Source of Consciousness

Impossible speculation - Unless You can define exactly what is consciousness.

Most people don't actually study consciousness -- they study the brain or the body, or nature, or the environment, or physics and/or space, or "Gods" and/or religions, or they study themselves (Being), because all of these things are related to consciousness. But these things also taint and corrupt the study because these things can not reflect the pure abstract reality of consciousness. About 50 years ago, after exhaustive research, I finally settled on water as a metaphor for consciousness. It works surprisingly well because consciousness and water share some properties.

One of the things they share is that water has two components (H2O) and consciousness has two components (thought and emotion). Science studies thought and the brain, religion studies emotion and "God", and they have argued about who is right for at least a thousand years. My opinion is that any argument that has gone unresolved so long has something wrong with the argument -- the right and wrong of Monism v Dualism is in fact a false dichotomy.

So to help me investigate these ideas, I started a thread in another forum entitled, Pure Consciousness?, where people helped me to explore the idea that consciousness may not be a pure singular thing. We did 35 pages and concluded that consciousness is not pure and has more than 2 components -- in fact it has 6 basic components that all other aspects of consciousness rely on in order to exist. They are knowledge, thought, memory, awareness, feeling, and emotion. These six components can be categorized into two divisions by how they work -- their function. Knowledge, thought, and memory are internal and private -- you can't know mine unless I want to share them. Awareness, feeling, and emotion are external and shared, you can easily learn mine unless I work to hide it.

Then I spent years in science forums studying how these different components and divisions work. Although in many cases, science actually validated my research, the scientists, themselves, would not accept or believe it. Especially when I showed a viable path between consciousness and evolution. I am certain that consciousness evolves.

And if you can not define 'exactly' what is consciousness how can you possibly ask for the source ?

I agree. And if you find the "source", would the consciousness be the same as human consciousness? My consciousness is more advanced than the consciousness of a worm, or a tree, or bacteria. All life is sentient, therefore, all life is conscious. Panpsychism claims that matter is conscious, so does that mean it has all six components? Or does it mean that matter has knowledge which is identity? If matter (identity) mixes with awareness, the result is "self". If the Universe is aware, then there is a real possibility that this has been interpreted as "God". Does that mean it is "God"? No. "God" is defined as having human consciousness -- this is one of the things that caused me to try to find a metaphor to explain consciousness, as I did not want to put my human ego into my interpretations and corrupt my studies. I think that "God" is an entirely different thing than the Universe, although I can not state with any certainty that the Universe is not aware -- it may be -- awareness comes from somewhere and there is some evidence.

What I am questioning here is if anyone, including me, who contributed to this post is conscious ?

Yes. We are all conscious -- all life is conscious. This silly argument comes from people's insistence that thought is consciousness. Since thought is part of the first division, is internal and private, it is difficult to prove, but that is nonsense. The second division, awareness, feeling, and emotion is external and shared, so it is easy to prove.

Tell us why we should accept that you are conscious?

Because I am alive, which means that my survival instincts are fully functional, and all survival instincts in ALL species are activated by and through awareness, feeling and emotion, which is part of consciousness.

And if you are conscious and can define and prove it - Then maybe you can speculate on the source.

Thank you. Gee

[Terrapin Station]

Because there is no such thing as objective ethics, objective conscience (which is quite the oxymoron), or universal laws.

What about laws of physics? Are these not universal laws?

I'm not a realist on physical laws. A physical law would have to be a real (objective) abstract, and I don't buy that there are any objective abstracts/abstract objects.

Physical laws can define what is objective (relative to the physical universe).

What's objective is simply what's external to persons (or more specifically external to their minds). And I'm a physicalist, so on my view, there's only the physical universe.

The primary question of objectivity may be: how to physically measure this?

Just any evidence of something like moral edicts (or whatever we want to call them) that are external to persons/their minds would do. We don't have to get too picky about it at this point--the first task is to simply try to provide any evidence of extramental moral edicts. No one ever does this (because of course the idea of it is rather absurd).

How to physically measure things like good/bad, beauty, value, etc? If these things are not (based on) physical properties of the universe then it may not be possible to physically measure them and they may not be able to qualify as objective.

I'm fine with not being able to measure what we'd be referring to. There would just need to be any evidence of values like good/bad etc. being extramental.

Of course, what we feel is good/bad, what we feel is beautiful, etc. is often something extramental, but that's not the idea here. The idea is whether the determination that something is good/bad, beautiful, etc. is extramental.

(1) It is conceivable that the universe has objective values, but there is no physical evidence to indicate that it has.

Sure, and on the complete absence of evidence that there are objective values, there's no good reason to believe that there are. Hence why we'd need some evidence of this to warrant belief that it's the case.

What level of objectivity is required to say something is objective?

Just any evidence of it, any reason to believe that it's the case aside from mere possibility would do. It would be great if anyone who claims there are objective values would get around to that part of providing any evidence of it or any good reason at all to believe that it's the case . . . but of course they never do.

[Atla]

consciousness has two components (thought and emotion). Science studies thought and the brain, religion studies emotion and "God", and they have argued about who is right for at least a thousand years.

Organism consciousness has no clearly distinct components. And organism consciousness isn't all there is to consciousness either. And in 50 years you never heard of science studying emotions?